In the previous article, I simply claimed why evolutionary theory is fake. Specifically, human beings said they were outside the jurisdiction of the mechanism called nature choice.
But if you actually believe in evolution, my question is as follows:
Early park managers, who were in charge of maintaining Yellowstone's “Standing” state, made a decision based on limited ecological knowledge.
Isn't human being part of nature?
So are they the same physical and biological laws as other species?
And if nature choices are the mechanisms that life is adapted and evolve, human activities must be considered as the expansion of this process, right?
Artificial paradox
This raises interesting paradox. If the human intervention in the ecosystem is a natural expansion of the evolution process through agriculture, industrialization, or urbanization, isn't climate change the natural expansion of the evolution process?
So what is an endory rhetoric from the left -wing environmental protectionist?
As they say, are humans just animals? Or are we more?
Why do environmental protectionists make a fuss about climate change, even though the theory of evolution of all other species and ecosystems?
I raise this as the discussion of climate change is burning Los Angeles again.
Each time a natural disaster occurs in the news cycle, the artificial climate change seems to be immediately identified as the culprit. Then, this will immediately pass or implement some kind of law to reduce carbon dioxide emissions or lower emissions.
In other words, lower our living standards and increase taxes.
When “conservation” is destroyed
This reminds me of the story. Let you share the historical yellowstone National Park case with you.
When President Theodore Roosevelt visited Yellowstone in 1903, he witnessed a lively ecosystem full of Elk, Bison, Bears, Wolf, and other wildlife.
However, within 10 years, this dynamic biodiversity has begun to disappear -thanks to the wrong conservation policy.
Early park managers, who were in charge of maintaining Yellowstone's “Standing” state, made a decision based on limited ecological knowledge. For example, fear of the extinction of Heradica, they have restricted hunt to wolves and restricted predators on lands that have been sustained for generations. These interventions have caused a cascade of ecological confusion, albeit intentionally.
Unconfirmed growth of the Elk's population has led to over -pavilion, and the beaver broke the essential tree to build a dam. When the beaver disappeared, their important roles in water management, as well, dried the pasture, reduced the number of animals of squares and otters, and escalated soil erosion.
The subsequent efforts to control the number of fast -growing spatula by mass Culling could not recover the damaged ecology and lost the balance between the plant phase and the animal phase.
As time passed, it became clear that the hunting practices of the indigenous people had maintained a historical delicate ecological balance. The idealized concept of the “Wilderness of Handy”, once owned by European settlers, has given up on the understanding that native Americans have long made these landscapes. Their exclusion from Yellowstone was recognized as wisdom and mistakes.
However, this error was only one of the park management history. Policy to protect specific species, such as Grizzlies, later reversed. The wolf, which was eradicated early, was re -introduced in decades.
Fire suppression policy ignored the regenerative role of natural fire, leading to a catastrophic flame when the fire management strategy changed.
Even the introduction of a rainbow trout in the 1970s native cut throt trout group.
Each intervention caused unexpected results and often required further corrective measures with the same damage.
Failure of fundamentalism
The point of the lesson of this mini history is that “climate change” is often the result of terrible management by bureaucrats and political actors.
When environmental protectionists and politicians try to pursue a glossy new “green” policy, their actions almost always make the ecosystem unstable. What the fundamentalists of these climate change cannot understand is that all intervention in the ecosystem causes a change of change. They are excessively amplified the problem and seek a universal solution for deep and contextual problems.
This pattern emphasizes important lessons. Environmental conservation is complicated.
Direct intervention often clarifies the limits of human understanding. Passive protection has proved that it is not enough to leave nature alone. The ecosystem is dynamic, and the seeds are rising, falling, and they are always evolving as they adapt. In order to store a specific ecological state, it is necessary to understand that all actions carry the trade -off, which can be profitable to some species while damaging other species.
For example, blanket strategies such as reducing carbon emissions cannot explain the unique ecological and economic dynamics of each region.
In some cases, the intervening in the purpose of relieving climate change, such as a large -scale reinterpreting forest project, has confused local ecosystems, and the seeds and communities are displaced.
Solar firms and wind turbines, welcomed as clean energy solutions, have changed wildlife and their habitat. Similarly, the rush of replacing gasoline vehicles with an electric machine has created a new environmental task, such as extraction of rare earth metals for batteries.
Philosophical disparity
These unintended results reflect the early manager of Yellowstone, who tried to maintain nature without understanding the complexity. Therefore, the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions seems to be theoretically good, but the method used to achieve it often overlooks the complexity of the ecosystem.
In addition, discussions on climate change have revealed a deeper philosophical disparity. Whether humanity is different from nature or different from nature. Accept that human activity is part of the evolution process, we accept that it collapses with “nature” and “unnatural” collapse and moral obligations that suppress our activities.
As I have just demonstrated, the ecosystem is not static. They are in a certain flux formed by both internal and external force.
Even if agriculture, industrialization, and climate change, if human activities are part of this progress, it must be considered a natural phenomenon in the evolutionary framework. In this view, artificial climate change is not abnormal, but the role of humanity as a dominant species that forms an environment.
After all, we are the only carbon -based monkeys that are trying to compete with other regions in the world, right?
However, if human activity is a part of the evolution process, it naturally assumes moral standards and responsibilities.
Human factor
In my opinion, the ecosystem is not dominated by a single guideline, such as “survival of a suitable person.” Rather, they are complex networks that interact in the species that contrary to simple classification.
As a conscious agent, humans have introduced unpredictable variables, that is, the ability to act with intentions and foresight. Unlike other species that adapt to the environment, humans intentionally form the surroundings.
This ability of intentional action is our greatest strength and the biggest task. It makes it possible we can build a city, grow food, and grow energy, but it is also an unstable position that it is the only species that can accidentally manage the system to the point of destruction. Place (see La Wildfires).
In short, the interaction of evolution, human intervention, and climate change clarifies the insufficiency of the simple story we have supplied.
Both evolution and conservation must evolve to explain the complexity of human institutions. As Yellowstone's manager has learned, you must accept that there is no perfect formula to save the ecosystem.
Instead, you must respect local context and accept the concept of adaptation management, which gives priority to long -term sustainability. By doing so, we can navigate the paradox, which is both the product and the natural shaper, and guarantee that our intervention will contribute to the prosperity of life, not the end of that FIR.
